World Families Forums - R-DF27/Z196: The Z209 subclade - what do we know about it?

ARCHIVAL COPY

WorldFamilies has changed our Forum Operating system and migrated the postings from the prior system. We hope that you’ll find this new system easier to use and we expect it to manage spammers much better. If you can’t find an old posting, please check our Legacy Forum to see if you can see the old posting there.

Is anyone communicating with ISOGG and Thomas Krahn on making sure all of the SNP testing bases are covered and documented as such?

Do we know for sure where L629 fits? We know we have a Z278+ guy who is L629+ ? Do we have any that are L629-? What's the status of L629 in M153 people?

I think the ISOGG thing is handled by Brian P. Swann and Vince Tilroe, and they are pretty current on the stuff under DF27 that is missing from one or both of the trees you have referenced. There is an issue Vince has (at least) involving Sanger-testing. I can't explain it, I just mention it. Thomas Krahn does his thing, and I think any other people (who have Finch2 access and know what to do with it) need to go through the aforementioned guys to get new results accepted and posted by ISOGG. This may only apply to new results like these, that lie outside the existing major projects (such as U106, L21, U152).

I can't address the specific L629 questions.

Thanks for responding but it would be cool to find hobbyist advocates for these new SNPS.

Occasionally I hear complaints that some subclade, i.e. Z196, don't get their just credit in terms of research and reporting. People like Brian, Vince and Thomas are very busy handling a multitude of of new SNPs.

If you want some attention, it pays to have an advocate who does things like...1) identifies and recruits people for targeted SNP testing,2) raises funds for specific cases of targeted SNP testing, and3) maintains and communicates a scorecard of the status of SNP testing by targeted kit # so it will be clear when a new SNP qualifies for the official Y DNA tree.

Figure-3, they show R1b-M153 to be slightly older than R1b-SRY2627 in Pyrenean Populations, however it doesn't mean that R1b-M153 is older than R1b-SRY2627 overall.

From the paper:

Quote from: Lopez-Parra.et.al.2008

However comparing the average STR variances of the R1b1b2c (0.243), R1b1b2d (0.207) and I2a2 (0.278) lineages considered in this study and given the replicated estimates pointing to a Mesolithic time frame for the origin, diversification and diffusion of the I2a2 clade (Rootsi et al. 2004), the temporal interpretation here providedfor R1b1b2c seems reliable.

Two R1b1b2c haplotypes from Biscay were found to be molecularly very differentiated from any other lineage, which surely accounts for the large average variance across Y-STR detected in Biscay (0.388) compared to Cinco Villas (0.185). The detection of such divergent haplotypes can indicate that many intermediate R1b1b2c haplotypes were either lost or still remain unsampled.

Hans van Vliet (spanjool, here) has within the past week estimated the TMRCA date of the M153 SNP as 1750 to 1800 years before present, or about 250-300 AD. That was on the Yahoo group, not this thread. But it stands as a tentative terminus post quem.

Given that the Aldaieta remains may be only two or three hundred years later than that -- and M153 found in two of the males there gives us a terminus ante quem -- this is closing in on calibration of the variance-based method of estimating SNP age with other, somewhat less groundbreaking methods of dating (such as carbon 14, dendrochronology, and tombstones).

The Z196 population sprung forward in a period just before a fast growth of the world population between 1400 and 600 BC (Keinan and Clark 2012). The first carriers of this UEP must be born in 3600 ybp. The mismatch patterns indicate a fast growing population with a bottleneck of 500 years; quickly followed by a second UEP: L176.2: a less fast growing population with a similar bottleneck period. As these populations were ahead of the general growth spurt they must have had an advantage. The until then existing relation between economy and health of living must have gotten a boost. Generally trade and manufacture enhanced by maritime possibilities not been there before is the reason.

The birth of SRY2627 was within the 1400-600 BC period between 3.4K and 3.3K ybp: a less fast growing society without a bottleneck. Z209 also came forward in the same period around 3.K ybp; the mismatch patterns indicate a wide spread, steady growing society without bottleneck indications.Both clades present a similar abnormal shoulder pattern in the mismatch graphs around 20-21 mutation steps. Indicative for RecLOH events (pointed to by Dick Hulan) or multi step mutations (DYS460: reference of Didier Vernade)? Or a common disaster leading to high metabolic stress, or a infectious disease..?The SRY2627 society looks must more homogeneous, living in large agglomerates avoiding the effects of genetic stress.The Z209 clade gives quicker offspring to new subclades due to live in more smaller compact societies and so encouraging perseverance of mutations.Larger inland living agglomerates in the SRY2627 case versus coastal villages in the Z209 folks.Hans

Yesterday Thomas Krahn updated this part of the draft Y-tree of FTDNA. Presumably the ISOGG tree will get this, or very similar, info very shortly, to be incorporated the next time the ISOGG tree is updated:

On a post to the Yahoo group (R-P312) Vince Tilroe mentioned today that on the ISOGG site there could be notes for some of the SNPs (such as Z209/Z220) that appear to be equivalent, and aren't; but their apparent hierarchy (based on 1K Genomes data) hasn't been confirmed with lab testing to date (i.e., finding someone positive for one and negative for the other). The idea would be to fast-track acceptance by ISOGG of what is known, instead of waiting indefinitely for resolution of some relatively minor ambiguities. I hope his proposal is accepted.

Figure-3, they show R1b-M153 to be slightly older than R1b-SRY2627 in Pyrenean Populations, however it doesn't mean that R1b-M153 is older than R1b-SRY2627 overall.

From the paper:

Quote from: Lopez-Parra.et.al.2008

However comparing the average STR variances of the R1b1b2c (0.243), R1b1b2d (0.207) and I2a2 (0.278) lineages considered in this study and given the replicated estimates pointing to a Mesolithic time frame for the origin, diversification and diffusion of the I2a2 clade (Rootsi et al. 2004), the temporal interpretation here providedfor R1b1b2c seems reliable.

Two R1b1b2c haplotypes from Biscay were found to be molecularly very differentiated from any other lineage, which surely accounts for the large average variance across Y-STR detected in Biscay (0.388) compared to Cinco Villas (0.185). The detection of such divergent haplotypes can indicate that many intermediate R1b1b2c haplotypes were either lost or still remain unsampled.

That divergence has always baffled me. Why are the Basque so different from the rest of us? It seems like study after study across the Pyrenees that Catalans at the eastern portion of the range and Basques at the western portion are quite spread apart. Yet, it appears to be less diverse than SRY2627 and therefore presumed as being younger, but I can't get my head wrapped around why the Basques seem in so many ways to be unique, e.g., DNA, cultural and linguistic history. I still can't get over how they would dominate such a specific region, yet being so young and then retain their very own distinct language that is not Indo-European. I imagine maybe M-153 arose in the Basque Country at a very young age, probably around the time the Romans were aware of Aquitania. The young man carrying M-153 grew up in the Basque Country learning Basque and also spawning a lot of offspring. Then it might make sense perhaps SRY2627 was populating the Cantabrian mountains around that same time frame. I'm guessing the approach was from the south.

Yesterday Thomas Krahn updated this part of the draft Y-tree of FTDNA. Presumably the ISOGG tree will get this, or very similar, info very shortly, to be incorporated the next time the ISOGG tree is updated:

On a post to the Yahoo group (R-P312) Vince Tilroe mentioned today that on the ISOGG site there could be notes for some of the SNPs (such as Z209/Z220) that appear to be equivalent, and aren't; but their apparent hierarchy (based on 1K Genomes data) hasn't been confirmed with lab testing to date (i.e., finding someone positive for one and negative for the other). The idea would be to fast-track acceptance by ISOGG of what is known, instead of waiting indefinitely for resolution of some relatively minor ambiguities. I hope his proposal is accepted.

Just thought I should report here that in the update of the ISOGG tree that has just happened, Vince's suggestion has been followed:

This weekend there is a little movement within this subclade. Yesterday morning Hans van Vliet (Spanjool on this forum) posted to the Yahoo R-P312 group a very extensive new tree diagram of a parsimony analysis of 650 Z196xL176.2 67-marker haplotypes, based on all markers (slow or fast), and without consideration of tested SNPs -- apart from the already mentioned Z196 and L176.2. He found significant clustering of 95% of the tested Z209 samples (or Z220, they are considered as one group). An interesting revelation was that Moscia (141935) clusters with these Z209 people -- though his DYS 437-15 and 448-19, which are modal, don't match the N/S clade's 14-18. If you would like to see the diagram as a .pdf, here is a link to it. I had to click on the "enlarge" button eight or nine times (and scroll to the right a lot) to be able to read individual kit numbers or ancestral names:

Moscia and I had previously been linked by virtue of sharing L484+ results at 23andMe. About two weeks ago, in order to get this SNP visible in my projects, I ordered L484 at FTDNA. I got a positive result within six days of batching. This, plus Moscia's known L484+ (and clustering with the Z209 group), led Hans to suggest to the Yahoo group that people who fall within the orange highlighted area of his new tree might want to order L484. At least seven people have already done so, that I know of. If anybody reading this would like to be a pioneer, you have until Wednesday evening to join the first batch.

I just checked Gbrowse, and as of today there have been 12 positives out of 19 tests for L484. Eleven of them are visible in the project for M223 (in Hg I2b1), where L484 is found beneath P78:

I'm the twelfth, and so far the only one (tested at FTDNA) from Z209. It remains to be seen whether L484 will helpfully split Z209. At the very least, with a few more positive tests from our Z209 subclade it should get a decimal, to distinguish it from instances of L484 within other haplogroups. A few negatives would make it more certain where it fits; that will be needed to get it onto the ISOGG tree and so on.

I'll try and study some of the new developments and see if I can contribute.I have done the WTY, a couple of years ago. They didn't find anything new then.Please feel free to contact me with some guidance, and we'll see what we can do.

I'll try and study some of the new developments and see if I can contribute.I have done the WTY, a couple of years ago. They didn't find anything new then.Please feel free to contact me with some guidance, and we'll see what we can do.

Well, dang. I thought I sent you a link to this, this afternoon. But it turns out that the url I pasted into that email was to Krahn's Draft Tree, instead of this thread. (I had both of those tabs open, and pasted in the wrong one. A senior moment.)

Anyway -- I'm otherwise known as Dick Hulan, and the email you got from me today contains about all the guidance I can offer. (For others who may be puzzled by this exchange -- Bennymosh appears to be Moscia 141935, my fellow L484+ dude. And btw a noted student of the X chromosome, in the halcyon days of DNA-Forums.)

If it were I who faced your happy choices, I'd order the Z220 or the Z209, cutting through a lot of fog layers for 29 bucks. If you want your known L484+ visible in FTDNA projects, you need it tested there, too. There's no need for you to test DF27 or Z196 if you are positive for something downstream. You would probably need Z216- to prove your "terminal" SNP, if you care.

And btw the FTDNA lab is less busy this week than it will be when all those sale orders hit, in the next batch.

As of last night we have three tested Z220+ guys (Hulan, Hall, Reno), plus Moscia (whose Z220 test is still pending), who are L484+. Five other Z220+ guys tested L484-; so this SNP will presumably get a decimal (L484.2, or whatever), and will split the Z220 lineage into three distinct groups: Z220*; Z216+ (with descendants Z278, Z214, M153); and L484.x+. I'll be curious to see whether this creates nodes that are of any use for interclade TMRCA refinements.

So far, the level of Z220 has not been distinguished from that of Z209, except in 1000 Genomes testing. All of the guys who have tested positive for one (at FTDNA) have tested positive for the other. (A number of people have only tested one or the other, not both.) For the purpose of very recent L484 test recruitment, I've assumed that Z220 is younger than Z209.

As of last night we have three tested Z220+ guys (Hulan, Hall, Reno), plus Moscia (whose Z220 test is still pending), who are L484+. Five other Z220+ guys tested L484-; so this SNP will presumably get a decimal (L484.2, or whatever), and will split the Z220 lineage into three distinct groups: Z220*; Z216+ (with descendants Z278, Z214, M153); and L484.x+. I'll be curious to see whether this creates nodes that are of any use for interclade TMRCA refinements.

So far, the level of Z220 has not been distinguished from that of Z209, except in 1000 Genomes testing. All of the guys who have tested positive for one (at FTDNA) have tested positive for the other. (A number of people have only tested one or the other, not both.) For the purpose of very recent L484 test recruitment, I've assumed that Z220 is younger than Z209.

Looks like L484 has been found in E, I, R, and T to date. Thomas' db lists this as a recurrent SNP, "Dinucleotide STR mechanism!" The fact that it is not included on his Draft Tree is a good indicator that he thinks it is unstable, as well as the fact that he has not assigned names (i.e., L484.1, L484.2, etc.) to the multiple states.

In general, ISOGG is attempting to avoid adding unstable SNPs; you will likely face an uphill battle should you try to get L484 placed on the ISOGG tree.

Well, it's been an uphill battle to get DF27/Z196 subdivided, and ISOGG-treed, but we did that. Our unstable little batch of R-P312 L484s, under Z220, has been around for at least some hundreds of years; is found in families with roots in England, France, Prussia and Italy; and appears to be phylogenetically meaningful. (As is the unstable little batch of I-M223 L484s, under P78, that has recently engaged the attention of Ken Nordtvedt, among others.) Some pretty orderly minds are addressing this question, and I'm confident that L484 will get sorted, to the extent that it deserves -- whether or not that includes assignment of decimal suffixes, placement on the ISOGG tree, etc. It deserves something, besides your comment that it's in a frequently mutating location -- which was already in the notes on Adriano Squecco's spreadsheet a year ago. Once it mutates, the descendants carry the mutation; so it's still a branch of that tree, even if it happens on several trees.

[Edited 8/9, striking through "and Italy" because Moscia's L484+ turned out to be Z220- and therefore a separate occurrence of the SNP.]